marginally subversive

Of Post-Buys, Rigor in Planning, Coke Zeroes and Vodka Martinis (that were probably shaken... or stirred)

I was just speaking with someone who's been part of my 'batch' of media planners and strategists in the Philippines.  She was lamenting that "the young ones are too impatient to climb up the ladder - looking at promotions as rewards; if only they knew what a promotion entails and how much it takes away versus how much it gives".  To that, I said "Well, I am sure our bosses also felt the same of us when we came out of uni and were driven to prove our worth - and well, pay off those student loans".

She also lamented that media planners don't do proper post-buys anymore.  And she went on reminiscing:  "You know, those times of actually staying up late at night to 'marry' data from one data-source that tracks the exact time of airing of a 15s ad to another data-source that contains the exact ratings at that point in time?"

For those who don't understand the preceding:  In the mid-1990s in the Philippines, we had two monitoring systems - the Philippine Monitoring System - or PMS (and yes, even if I never had the 'luxury' of experiencing one, I am sure it was not purely coincidental that it had the same monicker) - which monitored the exact airing of a TV commercial.  Then there was the Nielsen Telescope, which monitored exact ratings to the minute. 
A fresh-grad and new planner would be tasked to do this - marry the two data-sets.  The process sounds simple - you run PMS, you print it out, then you reinput the data into the other software, then press "run".  But recall that this was the mid-1990s in the Philippines: colored monitors were a luxury - I had a green one in Basic Advertising.  Processing power was very limited - so one 4-week campaign will be run overnight on PMS so as early as 8am, you can start entering the data into the other system, which would take another 2-3 hours of runs.  Oh, and the dot-matrix printers - which always found a way to screw up.
For me, it was a test of patience - it was baptism by fire (apart from having been assigned to the McDonald's account during my first year of professional existence as a media planner!).

And to that question which she posed, I said, "Yes.  The new ones have got it all easy."

And to which she responded, "But do you also notice that the rigor has been gone?"

She went one:  "Back then, we had to conduct not just analyses of the programs - but we made projections on how programs and breaks are going to be like.  We had to create reach-curves across different scenarios and mixes of buys - and predict how certain mixes can result to some probable reach.  It wasn't just the last 13 weeks or last 20 weeks.  It was the last 26 weeks - and past-year's similar period!  And we would determine if they were statistically different - or not.  And if they were, why!  These days, we just see media plans with ratings in them."

I just laughed:  I knew where she was coming from.

"And don't get me started on post-buys!  These days, they celebrate when they get 33% or 50% more GRPs than they planned to achieve.  They celebrate if they achieved 10% reach points more than what they planned to achieve - highlighting it to clients as if they were great things to be proud of.  Hello!  Wastage!

"If you delivered 50% more GRPs than what you planned, then that means you wasted money - since you didn't need that extra 50%.  You could've used that elsewhere... perhaps in another medium, another week, another... I don't know... events?"

"These days, post-buys are simply a reportage of what happened.  There's nothing in there that makes it relevant to the business and the future campaigns.  It just - a piece of paper!  A report!  What a pity!"

I tried to calm her down:  "But you see, things are changing, too.  Post-buy tempates of TV are probably not applicable to post-buys on digital."

She stared at me: "Oh no, no, no, no, no.  These digital post-buys that are seemingly so enamored with the idea of clickstream here and clickstream there... hello!  So what does that mean to me?  That they clicked on this ad and landed on this site... Then what?  They said the web is the most measurable of the different media - and it could be true.  But informative?

"All I have seen so far are fancy charts with lines and curves and percentages and ratios...  I don't see the "so-what?"  and I don't see the "what's next?" I'd like to know more:  so if this is what's happening, so if these keywords aren't performing, so if these banners are not delivering as much as the others, so if these are the likely exit-pages, so if these are the likely entry-sourves... so what?  And what's next?

And with that, we chugged down our drinks - me with my no-sugar Coke Zero and her with her Vodka Martini - shaken or stirred, she doesn't really care.  ("I am not James Bond.  More like Miranda Priestley and Wilhelmina Slater combined.")

"Problem at the Office?"

Every now and then, I'd get this question:  "Problem at the office?"  Largely, it is 'evoked' by the dark circles under my eyes.  (For the record: It is genetic.  Nothing I do can remove the bags nor the dark circle.  Believe me, I have tried.)

Image from BusinessWeek; illustration by Ray Vella.

BusinessWeek came up with this interesting article in their latest issue about problems at the office - and in addition, they looked at 'generational tensions'.  However, what really interested me was the similarities of themes underneath the different problems that we all encounter.

We strive for work-life balance.  And we try our best to maintain it by getting in touch with the Tech God or Tech Goddess in us (otherwise known as the nerd).  In doing so, we get dependent on technologies - and then suddenly, the very gadget that was supposed to empower us to achieve work-life balance is now a source of stress.  So we go to "new age seminars" and "zen seminars" - and tune out.  At first, there is the usual "I cannot live without emails and laptops and the internet and my BlackBerry..."  We get through that rather easily (at least in my case and a few friends') - what really is 'stressful' is the night before the return to work - and the first few weeks after work.  It's as if the world stopped - or accelerated? - when we were away.  One thousand emails unread - most of the were needed yesterday - or worse, the week before.

You get the picture.

Anyway, I think this piece was a good read.  It made me smile - and think.

As far as I am concerned, all these shall pass.  These are all ephemeral - and transient.  What is essential, as the Little Prince said, is invisible to the eye.

Or not.

agency executives are not doormats; we're people, too...

There is a fine, fine line between questioning a person's professional capabilities and attacking her/him personally.  There's also a fine, fine line between "client service" and being a "client's doormat".  Between service and slavery.  Between being demanding and being unreasonable.

For awhile now, I have been holding this thought in my mind.  A lot of marketeers think of agency executives (like myself) as "mere agency people" - "people who take my orders (or my boss') and get them done because we want to get things done".

For a long time, I have thought that this was the responsibility (the fault?) of agency people - both current and past players in the world of advertising, media and communications planning, and even research and other allied services.

Then it dawned on me that no, it's a shared responsibility.

We all have a shared responsibility to treat each other respect.

Agency executives ought to demand respect from their clients - and clients ought to respect their agency teams, regardless of whether they are from the media company, the research,or the creative teams.  No amount of "incompetency" is sufficient to warrant a 'personal attack'.  Specially if such attack is based on preconceived notions on races, genders, age, skin color, and types of passports.

Not because they deliver the goods and they get things done "the way we want to get things done".

But because it's the right thing to do.

Simply.

 

(Picked this up from Flickr)

We all come into this world naked.  And we all die, too.  We breathe the same air - and we look up to the same moon at night.  What makes you different is just in your head.  And life is too short to be concerned about your next bonus, the boss' accolades, or winning the next 'political bout' in the office.

 

(Photo from Flickr.)

Value Proposition versus Price Proposition

I have been trying to put a "dollar value" to my day.  This is part of my personal goal of setting up my own shop - an advisory shop for small to mid-sized entrepreneurs in Singapore and in other countries in Southeast Asia on how to break-through their respective markets and create compelling stories for investors. 

For the past several days, I have been looking at different ways of doing this.  I first looked at the idea of "direct salary costs" + "overhead/capitalization" + "preset profit margins".  But quickly, I saw the weakness in such an attempt.  My salary - or at least, my former company's salary - could not be a benchmark, because that is not necessarily the value that I can bring to the table.

I tried a different approach - benchmarking.  I started calling friends who have been in the business of consultancies (the closest I could get to "advisory") - and started to rack my brains in search of memories that could lead me to a number.  I then compared my credentials with their own credentials, their clients with my target clients... But then again, I realized,well, mine is an entirely niche target altogether.  My credentials - or anybody else's credentials - are not a sure-fire way to measure value.  And besides, how does one quantify the value of one's credentials - and those non-dollarizable values?

Then I recalled I had this book called "The Business of Consulting".  I started to look at the advice the author gave - and devised my own way of looking at how I should be charging - or perhaps, 'dollarize' my time. 

1. Start treating yourself as a company.  So list down all your possible expenses - knowing full well that you now are a company, not just an employee.

2. Determine how many days in a year will you be working to create noticeable value.  This may or may not be 8hour days.  There is no "number of hours" involved - the ultimate goal is "noticeable value-creation" for clients.

3. I had to be realistic - this would be a stressful endeavor.  So I figured there should be days wherein I will do nothing BUT nothing.  There will also be days when I will need to catch up on readings and learn new things.  And there will be days when I will have to market the company - well, that's also creating value, but not to the clients that I will be serving.

4. Only then did I arrive at a number.  It seemed high - at first.

5. I immediately tried it out with a trusted business partner - and told him what my rates are going to look like for the projects that I will be doing for his team.  Of course, I had to show him the value of the projects that I will be working with him on - and how these could potentially lead to better processes, better returns, better people.  He said yes.

So - value proposition versus pricing proposition?  I think looking at 'dollarization' from both angles is perhaps necessary.  "Pricing" however, tends to undervalue the "real value" - because "we have to be competitive, we have to get more sales volume, we have to get more pick-ups and empty the shelves, we have to have more sales units sold!"

So I am going to say, it's all about dolarization should never be driven by what's cheap, what's in the market, what the rest are doing, and what we think would make people buy ("People love cheap prices!" - to which I say, "Not really...")

And funnily enough, Seth Godin in his latest blog talks of this thing.  He says -

Your sales force and your customers may scream that you need to lower your price.
It's not true.
You need to increase your value. If people don't want to pay, it's because you're not delivering enough value for the money you're charging.
You're not selling a commodity unless you want to.

Coincidences.  How I love them.

(I would like to say "great minds think alike..." but then again, I don't think I can compare with THE Seth Godin...!  Haha!)

Your sales force and your customers may scream that you need to lower your price.
It's not true.
You need to increase your value. If people don't want to pay, it's because you're not delivering enough value for the money you're charging.
You're not selling a commodity unless you want to.

LinkedIn and other social networks...: Beyond Advertising

The news on LinkedIn.Com being valued at about 1Bln USD after having been infused with 53Mln USD of investments has made a lot of people asking:  "So how will LinkedIn.Com's business model be?"

A lot are speculating that their current revenue streams won't be enough.

Right now, LinkedIn.Com is all about delivering ads - with premium CPMs/CPCs considering the quality of the audiences that LinkedIn reaches - and premium subscriptions.  A lot of industry watchers are asking "will this be enough?", adding that "Nobody would pay for a subscription if social networks such as Facebook, Ning, MySpace, and Friendster would do" and "Nobody clicks on text ads anyway... so if they are to rely on advertising, it wouldn't be sustainable".

I beg to differ, though.

I think that so long as LinkedIn.Com sticks to its principles - to what got them here (i.e., their audiences and the trust that they have built amongst their members - paying or non-paying) - they should be OK on the batteground for subscriptions.  For one, I can stand and raise my hand that my LinkedIn subscription has paid for itself many times over.  And I am sure those folks who are also subscribers to LinkedIn are getting the same value out of it - more than the "free" spaces that they get on Facebook et al.

On the advertising front, I think LinkedIn has got something valuable - their audiences.  My impression is that the people who are in LinkedIn are the ones who are deciding the fates of major companies in major industries.  OK - perhaps, not the C-level people - but people who have the C-level executives' ears.

I also would like to argue that advertising is NOT the only way that LinkedIn can capitalize on their services.  Advertising - i.e., "forcing people to look at messages and forcing people to respond to them" (which is essentially what advertising traditionally is all about) - is not the only way for LinkedIn - or any social media - to realize their potentials.

I believe that the phenomenon of social media - the social web - needs to be approached differently from merely forcing people to consume ads.  It needs to be more intimate, more relevant, more personal - and more social.

I know that's a paradox - to be "personal" and yet "social".

How then?

That is the big question that I think LinkedIn - and anybody in the social media world - should try to answer:  How do we monetize the social networks that audiences voluntarily create without alienating and annoying the very audiences that created these social networks in the first place?

For now, I don't have an answer - and I also have the impression that anybody has the answer.

So... I guess the race is on...  Again.

On Networking, Schmoozing, and Building "Street Creds"

I am perhaps the worst "networker" around.  An introvert - bordering on being a hermit, I have been one who has had to make an effort to socialize.  I am - what you may call - a "learned, really-trying-hard extrovert".

Through the course of my career, I have learned the value of networking - not just schmoozing part, but perhaps more importantly, building a network of people who trust, believe, and are confident in me and my capabilities.

My ex-boss, KT, calls this - in one of our recent conversations - "spreading seeds of goodwill and excellence".  I couldn't have defined it better.  Across time, you'd see these seeds blooming into plants.

I am heeding the advice of Jeremiah Owyang and cutting/pasting *shamelessly* what he has to say about the art and the science (I think it is a science - there is a structure, there needs to be a structure...) to networking.

Thanks, Mr. Owyang.

=================

Here’s a few things I’ve learned, and hope you intake, invest, and pass on:

1) You’re always looking for the next opportunity, simply shutting down what else is in the market is fool hearted. It doesn’t mean you need to jump ship before 1 month, or 1 year, but it means you should be talking to recruiters, companies, and hiring managers to see what next skills are needed now, and in the future. This will actually help your current employer, as you continue to skill up, take on new projects, as they invest in you. Remember, even if you work for someone else, you are a company of one.

2) Those who ignore the party/conversation/network when they are content and decide to drop in when they need the network may not succeed. It’s pretty easy to spot those that are just joining the network purely to take –not to give. Therefore, be part of the party/conversation/network before you need anything from anyone. Start now, and continue to build relationships by giving now: share knowledge, help others, and become a trusted node and connector, not just an outlying ‘dot’ of a comet that swings in every 4 years or so.

View Original Article

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: Career, Jeremiah Owyang, Networking, Networking Strategies, Career-building, Growing, Personal Growth

Media Planning and Social Responsibility

This is something that I have been thinking about since I left the agency world and started working as a one-man sales support team for Southeast Asia.

(I had a great deal of time on my hands... Well, something that somebody - and I cannot remember who - said is the birthplace of either inspiration or evil thoughts. Fortunately for me, it is more of the former than the latter.)

The thought was simple: We spend so much money (OK, invest, as strat planners are won't to say) in media plans to advertise products. We come up with a lot of concepts to sell - we dreamed up GRPs, reach, frequency, recency, engagement, attention-planning, disruption, affinity targeting, and other theoretical frameworks to get it right - and well, to get clients to spend.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is evolving.

And I am not talking about things like digital media being more massive - and people are paying less attention and what-not... Those are given: people are just regressing to what is natural. (OK, that's for another post... later...)

The rest of the world is suffering: perhaps not in our immediate world, but in the bigger world. The gap between the top 10% households and the bottom 20% households in most countries is widening. The gap between the richest nations and the poorest nations is also widening.

And here we are, investing (or spending) money for client brands that perhaps consumers already know about - and may already care about.

Here's my point - after much digression: As media planners (and at heart, I am still one media planner - no matter what and how others think of media planners, I am still proud to have been and BE one), we actually have a lot of responsibilities.

And it's about time that we rise up to the occasion and take the risk.

I know this is about work. And work and Facebook don't seem to mix.

But most of my media planning and client-friends are in Facebook, I can't help but use this medium. My main point is simple:

If we can treat client investments in media planning/advertising to be more efficient, that in and of itself saves them enough - if not a lot of - money to use for the betterment of the world.

Think of the possibilities: Coke, for example (and I am thinking off the top of my head here - and I love Coke One!) - spends millions of dollars each year advertising their brand and their promotions.

If the media planners of Coke were able to make their investments in advertising more efficient - delivering the same amount sales at the a lower cost by maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks - wouldn't that be great? Let's say Coke in one country spends about 10Mln USD - and we are able to drive efficiencies (real efficiencies!) by 1% in addition to their demanded efficiencies, that's 10'000USD worth of savings. 10'000USD that they can either spend again - or 10'000USD that they can inject into their corporate social responsibility projects. Say to help the people in Burma or in China or in Darfur.

To get there, I think, there is a need for us to change mindsets. We have to think big. We have to be big. We have to be big in front of clients. We have to drive them to change their mindsets.

And if you're a client reading this - just think: Accountable media solutions + real savings that you can donate to an institution that would make the world a better place + "pogi-/gwapo-/brownie" points for you and your company.

Just think for a while.

(No, I have not become an Opus Dei - but I am certainly starting to believe that our work - whatever it is - is our way of doing God's Work - however you believe Her/Him to be.)

There's a lot to be done - but I think we can do something whilst doing our work.

Efficient media plans? Sure. Discounts? Sure. Additional value? Sure. But now, let's look for a purpose for all those. Perhaps, aiming to create efficient media plans, or tonnes of discounts or free spots - for the sake of changing the world is a lot better and bigger than simply getting that yearend "positive points" in the client evaluation sheet.

Risk in Media Planning

If you sit through a media planning meeting between a planner and a client, you'd probably hear terms such as GRPs, reach and frequency, CPRPs, effective frequency, and recency. If you sit in more sophisticated meetings, you'd probably hear of words such as "optimized media plan".

However, it is very rare for media planners to talk about risk management.

Which is quite surprising.

GRPs - ratings, TARPs, rating points - all cost money. And in these times of "very fickle-minded audiences", variability in ratings are more pronounced than ever before.

In spite of these phenomena, media planners are still preparing plans based on pre-set and predefined GRP goals and CPRP ceilings. They sometimes use sophisticated, individual-/respondent-level data to come up with "optimized" media plans.

However, such optimization techniques do not take into consideration "risks" - that is, the possibility of the media plan not delivering its goals.

I believe that the time has come for media planners to take into account the variability - and the risks - that come with their media plans.

I know that it is a tall order - but as audiences are being exposed to more and more options within a medium and within a timeblock, it is time for media planners to take into account risks and variability. It is only when we start thinking of risks and variability - and measure them and take them into account in a media plan - can we truly talk about ROI.

I have prepared a simple program that you could probably use as a starting point for thinking through a "risk management" approach in media plans. Of course, I will not claim to be an expert myself in risk-management; nor will I declare that the attached file is something that solves the problems of risk-management in media planning.

However, the attached could be a starting point - however simple it may be.

Here is a description of the file.

The challenge is simple: There are 10 programs that a media planner must consider buying. Each has a corresponding CPRP (cost per rating point). Here's the clincher, however: the average ratings of each of the programs are somewhere around 12.5. There is little difference across the 10 programs in terms of ratings - the media planner can only decide based on costs.

My proposition is simple: There is an opportunity to go beyond costs. In fact, there is a need to go beyond costs.

It is when things seem to be similar that we need to apply concepts of risk management into the media planning process.

To demonstrate, look at the attached file (after you've downloaded it and opened it in Excel 2000 or later). Enter any inputs that you'd like to test out in the blue cells. And then run SOLVER. It has been preset in the file.

The goal of SOLVER is to minimize what I call the "Risk Factor" whilst meeting the constraints that are defined by the media planner (e.g., the plan should be within budget; there is a minimum amount of GRPs that need to be achieved; there are minimum/maximum shares per program).

The Risk Factor is a simple measure - it is based on the concepts of variance, a common measure of risk and variability in the world of Finance.

This - I hope - will inspire others to take into account risk measures in the same way that they look at optimized GRPs, reach, and frequency. The time for risk management concepts to be incorporated in media planning, I strongly believe, has come.

And media planners should rise up to the occasion - specially now that clients are faced with challenges that they have never encountered before.

Company policy - and say what?

I wasn't so sure whether this quote made sense:  It's company policy not to talk about agency relationships but ... say what?

From Brand Republic Online - Brand Republic.

“As a matter of company policy we do not usually comment on our agency relationships, but we can confirm that we have recently appointed Starlink - a subsidiary of Starcom Philippines, as media agency-of-record for the Philippines.”

Well then again, it says "unnamed" executive and "usually", not always.  So if it's "usually" and not "always", then it's not a "matter of company policy", right?  Because if it were, then there are no exceptions to the rule.

Things that I miss, things that I would like to do

I miss going to company leadership meetings and presenting my viewpoints - presenting results to things that I had worked on for five nights in a row and making business cases and debating the pros and cons of decisions that are being made.  I miss the philosophical and "principles" debates - and the perennial question "But will it make money for us in the long-term?".  Either with clients or with other leaders in the company.

I miss presenting my viewpoints about how training and tools and employee-development should be managed.  I miss arguing with my peers who amongst the team has the highest potentials - and what we can do to maximize those potentials and keep them loyal to the company - or at least happy.

I miss the voice of my former peers - those passionate voices that sometimes fill the boardrooms at 7pm when we all just finished back-to-back meetings and teleconferences.  I miss the arguments - inane or otherwise - but nonetheless, fruitful.

I miss the announcements of new businesses - no, not half million wins, not 1million wins, but 2.5 or 3 or 4 or 5 million wins.  High-profile or low-profile wins.  Wins that make a difference to the company's bottomline - and wins that you know - I know - made a dent and made it possible to deliver bonuses to deserving people in the company.

I miss working late 2-4 days before a major pitch - against 2 other competitors, against 2 more powerful competitors.  We may not win it - but we knew we wouldn't go down without a fight.  We will give our best - even if it all boils down to price and relationships.  We believe in strategies - my peers and I.  We believed in processes - beyond the tactics and shortcuts into real business solutions that went beyond the media plan and discounts and negotiations.

I miss the things finishing worthwhile at 11pm at night or 1am in the morning - knowing that at 9am in the morning, I will be taking this presentation - "hot off the oven" - and present it and make a stellar presentation, answering questions that are sometimes inane ("How much discounts will you offer?") to the visionary ("So ten years from now, how do you think this brand will look like against your vision of the media and communications landscape?").

I miss going to meetings - representing Asia Pacific and the different countries that this region encompasses.  From the "emerging" to the "developed" to the "high-pop" to the "high pop-density".  From the "then-tiger" to the "new tigers" to the "elephants and dragons" to the "kamikazes".  I miss working inside a metal tube for 18 hours, not sleeping and knowing that when I get to the hotel on the other side of the world, I was expected to act as if I were in my natural world - my 'own' timezone, my 'own' rhythm, my 'own' life.

I miss going to Starbucks - or at least, getting the Concierge to get me Starbucks ("Quadruple Shot of Espresso Hazelnut Latte - the biggest cup that they can offer, whatever it is... please!") - as I go through last minute over my notes and my documents and my index cards which contain my agenda, my itinerary, my goals:  "What can I do for my region, for my markets, for my clients that I could take home from this series of meetings?"

People think I am soft - patient - kind.

I may be.

But I am a lot tougher than they think.

It's just that I don't believe in freebies.  I don't believe in politics.  I declare my thoughts even if it puts me at risk.  I come up with rational explanations - even if it runs counter with the accepted norms.  (And yes, I may not go far with these beliefs.)

I have proven myself - to others and to myself.  I have delivered businesses - and more importantly I have paved the way for others to build their own businesses and reputations.

That - I am proud of.

That - I would like to do.  Again.

In a big company - or in a small company.  In a for-profit company - or one involved with non-profit.

Persistence

Seth Godin's entry today is very timely - at least for me.  Mr. Godin never fails to amaze me in ensnaring things that are floating in my mind.  (No, I will not even equate myself with Mr. Godin - there's just a sense of "vibrational compatibility" - a resonance, I guess.)

In his latest entry

Remarkable visions and genuine insight are always met with resistance. And when you start to make progress, your efforts are met with even more resistance. Products, services, career paths... whatever it is, the forces for mediocrity will align to stop you, forgiving no errors and never backing down until it's over.

If it were any other way, it would be easy. And if it were any other way, everyone would do it and your work would ultimately be devalued. The yin and yang are clear: without people pushing against your quest to do something worth talking about, it's unlikely it would be worth the journey. Persist.

I like the last word he wrote.  Persist.

Against mediocrity.  Against "it's good enough".  Against "no one will know and notice".  Against "where's the shortcut".  Against the dark forces that cut squares.

My personal guiding principle - borrowed from my former university - is Arete.  Excellence. Virtue.

And that is what's driving me.

Mass x Acceleration x Distance = Potentials

The Opportunities in Social Media

Social media is here - and that's probably the understatement of the year (and it's only February 2008).  But in my discussions with customers and with partners, the talk - regardless of whether it's about digital marketing communications or search or media planning - always leads to the topic of social media.

The questions - expressed differently by different people - were all centered on one thing:  What do we do with it?

To be honest, I have no idea.

I have learned things about social media - about what works and what doesn't, what 'endears' and what 'pisses' audiences off.  I think that social media and the technologies that are powering these media are changing a lot of things in our lives - privacy, for example, seemed to have taken a backseat in the priorities of consumers - until Facebook falls flat on its face in the late-2007.

Anyway, so what do we do with it?

I still have no idea.

And the truth is, I don't think a lot of people do.

There is one blog though that I have been following - Jeremy Owyang's blog.  He has a lot of things to say - and he does make sense.

His latest entry tries to define what we can do with social media - and how social media goes beyond the metrics of search.  I think the statement that best sums up his position on this is:

The greatest opportunities lie where companies (become) a part of (the) communities where ads may not even be present.

And I couldn't agree more.

While some vendors and ad companies see social networks as another additional medium to air/advertise and deliver messages, I believe otherwise.

Social media are conversational media.  It is where audiences get to talk with one another directly.  Audiences are using social media in addition to - or in lieu of - email, instant messsaging, and other 'traditional' forms of communications.

Advertisers rudely interrupt the conversations.

(Think of it this way:  You're talking to your friend about your new shirt - and suddenly, out of the blue, an advertiser - say, GAP - butts its head in and starts advertising.  How do you feel?)

I think clients, marketeers, and agencies should start thinking about beyond "interrupting conversations" - and actually joining in the conversations that are already happening.  (Remember the ClueTrain Manifesto?)

Advertisers would be forgiven if they asked "... But how do I advertise?"  That's their 'essence' as advertisers - they advertise.  But the challenge is for advertisers to become more than just advertisers - they need to become real marketeers.  They need to become "Real Conversationalists".  They need to be "story-tellers", not just sellers.  They need to be listeners - not just talkers.

But hey, isn't that what Cluetrain was all about? 

Well.

Social media have always been around - it's only now that it has taken on the internet by storm powered by new technologies and digital connectivity.  But social media have always been around - rumors, blind items, neighbors talking "over the fence", people gathering in the town-center to discuss things...

And it is part of human nature.

What should advertisers do?

Nothing.

Of Ferraris and Speed Limits

 

Photo is from jakedevine's flickr
jakedevine's photostream can be found here

I learned a new "maxim" today.

(Note the quotes:  I am not entirely sure if this "maxim" is indeed one.  But it somehow struck me.)

It was in a corporate training session:

It's like bringing in a Ferrari into a country where the speed limit if 80kph in the freeway.  The Ferrari remains to be a Ferrari - it's just that the Ferrari can't be faster than the allowable speed limit.

Two questions -

1. Why bring in a Ferrari then?  What's the purpose of the Ferrari?  Why spend on a Ferrari if one has no desire for speed?  For showing-off?  But is that what the Ferrari really is for?
   
   Sure, it is expensive - but c'mon: a Ferrari is a Ferrari is a Ferrari - and its telos - its purpose, its raison d'etre - is to be a Ferrari - which means be the kind of the road!  Being owned by someone whose life evolves around speed is its telos - its destiny.  It cannot simply traipse and simply chug along at 40 or 60 or 80kph - it's not its destiny.
2. Won't the Ferrari be nothing but a car - similar to any other car?  The Ferrari is special because it is a Ferrari.  If it cannot run as fast as it could, then won't it lose its meaning, its raison d'etre?
    
   I am no autophile nor am I knowledgeable about cars - but when my dad would go on business trips, he would ask me to turn on the engine of his old Volkswagen every morning and rev up the engine without leaving actually driving it out into the streets (which really frustrated me... but that's another story).  His reasoning:  If you don't use it, it's going to be spoiled.

Now what exactly is my point?

If you can't handle a Ferrari, don't get one.  It's just going to be a waste.  Specially if you knew right from the start that you cannot drive it to its fullest potential - you're just wasting money and you're just wasting the Ferrari's potential - and soul.

(And no:  I must clarify this is not all about Ferraris at all.  I have nothing against Ferraris.  I love speed.  I would love to have one.  I actually am dreaming of getting myself a Ducati or a BMW bike - because I like going against the wind.)

Ads I liked - The Coke Side of Life

I liked this ad.  Don't ask me why.  I guess, it's because (1) I like Coke and have been drinking Coke since I was young (though I have stopped drinking Coke now - my doc says it's "bad for my hyperacidic stomach" and my personal trainer says it's full of "empty calories"), and (2) I like Charlie Brown.  That Charlie finally got the better end of the deal makes me feel, uhm, warm and fuzzy.  There's hope for us good people!

Questions and Answers

I have a conversation with an ex colleague of mine about the future of the media planning and communications planning industry.  And here are some excerpts of what we talked about:

Him:  So do you think that advertising is going to decline this year and in the next few years?

Me:  Well, in terms of adspends that are being monitored, yes - it is very likely.  TV is already showing signs of slowing down at least in Singapore and in Thailand.  In the Philippines, FTA-TV is getting to be more and more challenged by alternative forms of entertainment.  And in Malaysia, the growing strength of Cable versus FTA is already something worth mentioning.

What should media agencies do?

They are in a very good position, in fact.  They hold all the data and information that can transform the media industry into something beyond the media planning of the old.

What kinds of data do they have?

Do you believe in the maxim "You are what you read or watch or listen to"?  That however you interact with different kinds of media channels define who you are - say, if you want to watch a lot of serials on TV - it says something about you.  And that if you are addicted to lifestyle magazines or say, the sports section of a newspaper - it says something about you?

Well, the data that media agencies have are all these.  And I just don't mean "data as percentages".  I think media agencies need to dive more deeply into these and uncover more stories.

But they've always worked - we've always worked - on the levels of ratings and percentages?

Which I believe is insufficient.  We should have dove a little deeper.  I know that some companies have tried getting elemental data for optimization purposes - "individual level data" apparently is good for optimization.

But it's more than that.  Imagine being able to cluster people based on the likely-TV behaviors.  Imagine being able to cluster people not just in terms of their psychographics - based on answers to surveys with a battery of attitudinal statements - but based on their actual behavior on TV: when they switch, how often do they switch channels, what kinds of programs make them switch, what kinds of ads make them switch, what programs make them  loyal, what artistes make them loyal to a program. 

All these are in the usual TAM data that Nielsen Media Research, TNS, and other research providers give out regularly.

It's just that we've never dove deeply.

Is it because we lack the intellectual capacity?

Of course not - and I take offense at that!  (A bit of a chuckle)  It's because we are content with percentages - with measurements of the old - GRPs, reach, frequency, CPMs, frequency distribtuions, demographic and affinity definitions.

We have just become complacent - we have just become contented with what we have.  We need more metrics.  We need more curious and disciplined people.  We need people who are willing to experiment with numbers - and with the combinations of numbers.  We need people who will say to their Western counterparts that "Look, guys, these are some ideas that we have because we think that our media landscape is far different from yours.  We need to measure this and that, beyond ratings and GRPs."

Is it then a matter of will?

And curiosity and the boldness to dream big.  The funny thing about being bold is that it lifts you up above the rest and you become more of a target.  But that's the price of being bold.

So what are you proposing?

The past several years have seen some strides in the maths and statistical theory world.  There's this thing called "Hierarchical Bayes" methodology, stemming from Bayesian theory.

There's also the field of computer simulations, and good old econometric modeling and similar regression techniques - but done on an individual, respondent level basis and on a cumulative basis.

All these are pointing to richer, far more powerful usage of already-available data.

What of content?

What did Marshall MacLuhan say?  "The medium is the message."  A lot of people think of that as a "goal" - some think that that is all about "integrating the medium and the message".

I think differently.

I think it is not the goal - "the medium is the message" is a declarative statement, a factual statement.  It is essentially suggestive of the reality that we cannot separate the medium from the message - nor the message from the medium.  The medium is the message - and vice versa.

What drives people to watch TV is not TV per se - it is the TV + the content that it contains - the messages that are contained within TV.  What drives people to go online is not just because online is online - but because within online, there is a content - a message - that if it were not available, people would look for elsewhere.

The medium is the message - and the message is the medium - are facts, not goals.  It is not something that we work towards.  It is a given.

So where does that leave the divide between creative and media planning?

Who has the data?  Media planning departments.  Who can best explain the needs of the consumers and uncover these needs?  Media planners.  Who can best describe the underlying thoughts, wants, needs and "motivations" of consumers?  Media planners.

But it is the creative - the messaging department - that puts flesh to these.

But isn't advertising all about selling?

True.  But like all seasoned sales people would know:  you cannot sell unless you have somehow made an argument - emotional or logical, rational or irrational - to consumers.  If you have not connected, you can't.

Where does information management, Bayesian theory, simulations, Hierarchical Bayes, and multiple-level regression analyses come into the picture?

Richness in understanding who the consumers/audiences are - based on what they actually do, not just on what they say or claim to say - and not just on demographics.  But real behavior.  Real-time, real observable individual-level behavior.

Will it be a panacea?

No such thing exists.  It is a first step - a significant step away from percentages (which treat all consumers as equals and as "mere statistics").  It is a first step towards real understanding of consumers and audiences.

Doesn't it already exist in the digital world?

To a certain extent it does.  But the digital world is also battling issues in privacy - it is so "close" to personally identifiable information that it is quite scary.  At least in TAMs, in PeopleMeters(R), there is still some sense of anonymity.

So what should media companies do?

Be brave.  That's the first step.  Be more than just order- and brief-takers.  Be more than just mere "OK, we'll book it by tomorrow" sayers.  Think through each and every media plan - and go beyond the percentages.

================================

 

The Stumbling Block in Digital Communications Planning in Southeast Asia

A friend of mine who still works in the advertising world mentioned was venting yesterday about the lack of standards in digital communications planning within her team.  She came from a 'traditional' media planning background and was raised amidst GRPs, reach and frequency, and cost per rating points and CPMs.  As digital planning exploded, she was amongst the first who took on the online medium in her recommendations.

What she is frustrated about is the lack of discipline and standards in digital communications planning as we all had in 'traditional' media planning.

In traditional media planning, we could - through the use of third-party research - come up with GRP/reach curves and efficiency curves.  We could somehow make projections on what levels of reach would a certain GRP level achieve - and put a dollar value to such achievements.  We could even put a dollar value to "creative executions" - buys that go beyond GRPs, 30s ads, and FP4C ads through valuation techniques.  In 'traditional' media planning, there was the discipline imposed on us by the numbers.

In digital communications planning, the numbers - at least it seems - are not enough.

We lack a standard currency on which we could trade.  We lack normative databases on how much delivering 1'000 audiences would be within a medium - and what the most optimum level is.

This may sound like a "return to the past" - and perhaps, sounding too traditional.  It may also sound like this is an attempt to put into old leatherskins - traditional media planning leatherskins - these new emergent media.

I would argue that it isn't.

We still need the discipline.

At the end of the day, we're still managing investments - and a certain form of discipline is necessary.

It doesn't have to be GRPs, reach and frequency, and CPMs.  These metrics in and of themselves are limited - and any seasoned marketeer and media planner would tell you that these metrics do not encapsulate the entirety of the media planning process.

But these are the basics - and in digital communications planning, we need to get back to the basics and build on them.

Sure, we've talked of the long-tail and pay-per-click planning method.  Long-tail makes it difficult to capture the number of people who see a certain, unknown website and therefore its impressions and its CPMs.  Pay-per-click makes it difficult to project what will work and what won't.  But these do not make measurements and predictive methods impossible.

A return to basics is necessary for the digital communications planning world to move forward and rise up to the occasion.  A return to basics - audience measurements, audience exposure optimization, cost-efficiency checks and benchmarking, GRP/reach projections - are necessary foundations to build on.  A return to basics does not mean that we simply get stuck there - we need to move forward.  A return to basics means a return to discipline, structure, and rigor in our approach to planning - an establishment of the foundations from which we can leap and grow.

Reach- versus Rich-based Media and Communications Planning: That's the REAL Issue

If I were to summarize the most critical dilemma facing media and communications planners these days, it would be making the choice between "REACH- versus RICH-" media and communications planning planning philosophies.

 

REACH media/communications planning is perhaps the easier way out.  One comes up with numbers, measurements, and cost-per-thousand impressions to rationalize why certain combinations of media channels and programs are best.  Numbers don't lie - at least not in the media planners' presentation. 

REACH-based media planning is relatively easier to justify:  Just show that a lot of eyeballs get to see the ad, awareness picks up after a few weeks of airing, and voila - another successful campaign.

For clients, it is a less-risky move:  REACH-based planning will always churn out the same things over and over and over again.  TV and newspapers - top titles, mind you - will always be there, with a spattering of radio spots and the minimal investments in online banners ("Oh make that an expanding ad!").  To round it all up, clients would also want some outdoor - which some creative executives would probably lift out of their print and poster layouts ("Just blow it all up!")

 

RICH-focused media/communications planning, on the other hand, demands a lot from media and communications planners, their clients, and other stakeholders - including creative agencies, digital companies, content providers, and media space vendors.

Because its focus on generating RICH audience experiences, metrics such as GRPs, reach, frequency, and CPMs, suddenly become incomplete.  Planning theories such as "recency planning" versus "effective frequency planning" become insufficient in determining what constitutes an effective media and communications plan.

What used to be a simple decision for clients becomes more complicated:  "How do you measure - or worse, predict - consumers' experiences?  How sure are you that that is the desired effect?  How sure are you that it is rich-enough?"

 

REACH- versus RICH-based media planning - which one will you choose?

 

Technorati Tags: Digital Planning,Communications Planning,Engagement Planning,Brand Engagement,Media Engagement,Metrics,Media Planning,Agencies

Strategic Planning, Insights and All That...: An Attempt to Define the Nebulous

I was asked a question by someone on "how to be a good strategic planner".  I am not certain why I was asked that question - because I have not been really a strategic planner in the traditional sense of the word (i.e., working with creative teams and brand-client teams to come up with positioning statements for brands).

Nevertheless, I ventured into providing some answers.

I think that being a good strategic planner requires first and foremost, curiosity about the humanity that is behind the term "consumer".  I believe that when we plan marketing campaigns and advertising projects, we immediately put on our 'marketeers' hats', which is a bit constricting.  With marketing hats, we start thinking of people as "consumers", "buyers", and "audiences", rather than "people who have needs".  I believe that the first thing we need to do is to understand - deeply - the human behind the terms "consumer", "buyer", "audience".

Understanding and unlocking this makes our jobs a lot easier - and our communications campaign a lot more aligned with what exactly people need.

Now that's easier said that done. 

A good friend of mine, who used to work with me in Vietnam and who has now moved to Bangkok, thinks that "insight is the most overused word in the marketing communications industry".  And it is true.  Information is often mistaken as insights.  Charts, advanced and basic stats, percentages, and competitive benchmarks are all considered as "insights".  In my worldview, insights do not come from a single chart or a single statistical test or a complex process - but rather from the agglomeration of all things that we know and have uncovered about the faces behind the labels "consumers", "audiences", and "buyers".

An insight, sometimes, is mistaken to be something that is supposed to be new - and differentiating.  I don't think that insights need to be always original or new - in fact, some of the best insights that I have come across in my dealings with research agencies and consultancies are a reiteration of what we already know:  that people drink certain brand of soft-drinks because everybody else drinks that brand.  That people want choices - even if those choices need not be exercised by them.

These are nothing new - and not groundbreaking.  But they are reiterations of the human condition.

And as long as it is rooted in the human condition - the humanity that lies behind the labels "consumers", "audiences", and "buyers" - I believe it is an insight.

And insight comes from asking questions.

The most important question I think is not "What's the observation?  What did you observe?  What are the measurements?  How high, how low?"  I believe that to arrive at an insight, the most important question is "So what?", which can be broken down into

• Given these N-number of things that we already know from different sources, what ties them all up together? 
• What is the common theme?  What is the underlying story?  What does it mean to the business?  What does it mean to the brand?
• What is the underlying human truth that can encompass all these observations?  How can we leverage this deep human truth to drive our business?  To drive connections with brands?
• What is different then?  Why is it different?  How can this difference be important/detrimental?

The other thing that agencies and clients are most wont to do is saying "But is it actionable?", which suggests that there are actionable insights and non-actionable (worthless) insight.  I believe that no such distinction between actionable (and therefore, "worthy") and non-actionable ("worthless") insight exists.

All insights - since they are based on human truths - have a potential to be actionable.

What makes an insight "non-actionable or worthless" is the lack of creativity and openness in either the client or the agency-side to act on it.  It takes will to create something out of insights.  In fact, it may take more than a department to make an insight truly actionable.  Some insights - if not most - demand that Marketeers go beyond their comfort-zones bound by the marketing department, and involve others - R&D, customer service, corporate communications, sales teams, the senior management team - in transforming insights into action-steps.

An insight - because it is based on human truth - have the potential to create a difference - but it will take guts to make it a reality.

Do insights change across time?  Tricky question.  Here are my thoughts:  Insights do not change immediately across time because they are based on human truths, the human condition.  What changes is how these human truths expressed by consumers.

Here's an example:  Because of advances in communications effects measurements, we are now able to say that "word of mouth and peer recommendations are amongst the most influential sources of information".  Is that an insight?  Yes.  Is it new?  No.  It's been there forever - we've always known that if Person A hears from her friend, Person B, that "Brand M sucks", chances are Person A will believe Person B and assimilate that "Brand M sucks" and consider it in her next purchase decision.

Has it changed across time?  The insight that peer recommendations are influential is as true now as it was back then - when neighbors talked to each other about their experiences on childcare, laundry bars, medicine, and a whole gamut of products.  It's always been a truth - a characteristic of our humanness (our humanity) - to believe our friends more than that celebrity with glowing skin on TV that a certain facial care product works.

What has changed however, is the medium through which these peer recommendations are made - and the definition of what a "peer" is.  These days, "peers and acquaintances" are no longer just people you know personally and people you've met in person.  They could be in your Facebook community or MySpace followeres or Friendster rolodex.  They could be email pals or part of a discussion forum.

The manifestation of what a "peer" is has changed - but not the power of the peer.  The insight remains - but the manifestation and its speed changed.

There is the danger of course, of being too reliant and too stubborn about an "insight" uncovered aeons ago.  Because humans change and evolve in response to the changes in their environment, it is necessary to continually check the insight.  Human truths also do change - in the same way that demographics change and evolve across time.

The challenge is to know when to update - or even discard - an insight and replace it with a new one.  It is not something easily done again because it entails a return to discarding our marketeers' hats and be a curious soul about our people - the people who are "consumers and buyers and audiences".

I know I kind of veered away from the original question:  "How to be a good strategic planner".  But the role of the strategist is in fact this:  to continuously look at the human truths that lie behind or beneath the terms "buyer, consumer, audience" (and therefore insights) and weave them into one coherent strategy that would make that human truth be expressed, communicated, and delivered to those with whom the brand will make highest probability of success.

Withdrawal symptoms...

A challenge, I would say, is emerging. 

I am used to seeing lots of zeros in planning, learning, and project engagement briefs (unfortunately, those zeros don't get filtered down into my pocket.)

I am also used to being able to work independently and sign or initial invoices for endorsements.  Or give advice on pressing business issues about the strategic direction of the office.  Or be heard about what my thoughts are with regard to where the company should be headed in the next 3-5 years - and what the risks are.  Or be consulted by the staff. Or approve forms. ("Approve now, inform later..." was my mantra; "it's easier to rationalize and apologize than seek permission" was my other mantra.  Of course, within reasonable bounds.)

Or stay up late to finish one report or presentation needed by the client for a very crucial meeting that could make or break the business.  Or stare at the screen in search for stories amidst a plethora of numbers - and scratching my head every time a hypothesis bombs.

Suddenly, I have to scale down.

Significantly.

And my body - and my mind - is suddenly undergoing "withdrawing symptoms" with all the changes that are happening in my new environment.

I know - I should be thankful.  And be careful of what I ask for - as I just might get it.

Well, that gives me more time to do more of my academic and charity work, and more time to spend with my significant other [albeit electronically].

But I wonder how other agency-execs feel and cope when they move to the client side?  Did they feel the same as I do now?  Or is mine a spurious case - an outlier?

Dumbing it down is making it boring...

I just wrote about boredom in a previous entry.  And right after I hit "publish" on my Windows Live Writer, my RSS reader told me that Seth Godin